Sectioned woman’s family gets apology from Bucks Council and NHS over housing failure

The authorities were at ‘fault’ for not communicating properly with the resident after she left hospital, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ruled in a new decision.

The regulator, which investigates complaints against councils, said the failures led to ‘distress’ for the woman’s daughter, who is known only as ‘Mrs X’.

The Ombudsman upheld a complaint the woman made about the support provided to her mum, who is anonymised as ‘Mrs Y’.

In 2021, Mrs Y received care under section 3 of the Mental health Act, which allows for the detention of a person in hospital for the treatment of a mental disorder.

Following this, the council had a duty to arrange accommodation for Mrs Y and housed her in a property referred to as ‘Home A’.

At the time, Mrs X confirmed she was happy with the move, even though it required a top-up fee of £420 a week.

But she subsequently complained about her mum being charged extra for her care placement, without being provided with suitable alternative accommodation within budget and now wants her to be reimbursed for the top-up fees.

However, the Ombudsman said it found ‘no fault’ by the council in identifying and offering a suitable and affordable nursing home placement.

Where it did find fault was in the council and NHS’s communications with Mrs X about alternative homes for her mum.

Mrs X ‘raised concerns’ about the safety of another alternative property that had been identified for her mum – ‘Home E’.

The woman worried the home might not meet Mrs Y’s complex needs and that it would not be ‘safe and clean’, given its previous ‘inadequate’ CQC rating, which later changed to ‘requires improvement’.

The Ombudsman said: “It may have been helpful at this point if the trust or the council had explained the inspection and commissioning process and specifically, addressed what had happened since the CQC inspections at Home E.

“The records show the practice Forum recommended the trust/council should speak to Mrs X to explain the commissioning process and reassure the family about Home E. I have not seen evidence to show this was done. This is fault.”

The regulator said the fault identified in this case may have led to Mrs X ‘reconsidering a placement at Home E’.

The Ombudsman said: “The council and the trust have agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the loss of opportunity and distress caused by the fault with not communicating effectively with Mrs X about the suitability of Home E.”

The council has been approached for comment.